Same Gender Attractions: A "Special" Adversity?

[Elphaba]

Helen (aka Dash's Mom): Everyone is special, Dash.

Dash: Which is just another way of saying no one is.

-The Incredibles

Dash is showing his mom that when she says everyone's special, she's saying he isn't special, when in fact, HE is rather special, as we soon see in the film.

I just think it's a weird example to demonstrate your point, because, in context, it states the opposite.

Elphaba

[Finrock]

Good afternoon Elphaba. I hope you've enjoyed your weekend! :)

Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my post.

You may find it problematic, but Elder Jefffrey R. Holland does not. In the Ensign article Connie posted, he said:

Yes, I read that article from Elder Holland. I think Elder Oaks speaking about same-sex attraction summarizes the issue well by stating, "[t]here are differences, of course, but the contrast is not unique."

Elder Wickman gives the example of his daughter who is handicapped and who, if she could, presumably would be married to a man. However, she will not have an opportunity to marry in this life. Because she does not have the "hope" of ever marrying in this life, in order to live the law of chastity, she will have to be celibate her entire mortal life. So, the circumstances of what is preventing a person from having a hope for marriage might be different, but the struggle of living the law of chastity without the hope of an "outlet" in this life is the same.

There are many individuals in life who have no hope of marrying and who are not homosexuals and who are expected to remain celibate despite their circumstances. In this way the struggle of a homosexual person is no more unique than anyone else who must remain celibate.

Additionally, acknowledging such does not equate to insisting on special accommodations. I have seen people who are homosexual come to the board who do want these accommodations, but that is certainly not true in every case. Some of the time, they come to the board wanting to understand the Church’s position. Much of the time, they want to be able to talk about their homosexuality with Church members in a safe church-oriented setting. That does not equate to insisting on accommodating their homosexuality.

I agree that supporting the position that homosexuality is a unique condition does not equal "to insisting on special accommodations." As I stated in my post, however, and I emphasize here, in my experience this position has almost always lead to insisting on exceptions from the law of chastity for homosexuals. Further, I certainly was not intending to question anyone's motives, I simply was using point 1 of my post as one reason why I find the position "homosexuality is unique" to be problematic.

In other words, it seems to me from my exposure to this topic, that the line of reasoning that homosexuality is unique easily turns in to a call for exceptions to the law of chastity and marriage. I wholly acknowledge that my experience might be anecdotal.

What I often observe is a major disconnect between the person who is homosexual and some of the members of the Church who respond to him. He is often trying to describe how it feels to be homosexual in the LDS Church, while those responding are often inferring he means the Church should change its policies, when that’s not what he’s saying at all. Rather, he’s usually trying to describe why it is so hard for him to remain a faithful member and be homosexual, but he is not demanding the

Church change its doctrine.

Although I wasn't speaking to this point in my posts, this may be true.

In the interview you reference below, Elders Oaks and Wickman state that same-sex attraction is not permanent; however, they acknowledge that for some it is permanent while mortal. So, unless you are applying that scripture to mean the temptation might not be removed while mortal, and that homosexuality can, for some, only be overcome once the person has passed on, you are ignoring a significant portion of the interview, and thus, the Church‘s position on homosexuality...I say this because I don’t get the sense you are applying the scripture in that way; rather, that you think no one is permanently homosexual while mortal. This is not the Church’s official position, and it is not true.

Oh, I think you've misunderstood my application of 1 Cor. It is my fault because I didn't emphasize which part of that scripture I was using to support my claim. Please allow me to try and clarify my point.

My claim is that the struggle that homosexuals experience, of not being able to marry yet having to remain celibate, is not a unique struggle. To claim otherwise I feel contradicts the scripture in 1 Cor. 10:13 which states that there has "...no temptation taken [us] but such as is common to man..." In other words, the struggle that homosexuals struggle with is a temptation that is common to man. It isn't unique and consequently we can withstand the temptations. I assumed because I was speaking against the uniqueness of the homosexual struggle that people would understand how I was applying the scripture. I apologize. I hope you understand what I mean to say now.

I wasn't making any claims as to whether a person could "stop" being homosexual in mortality or otherwise. Although I certainly think because their struggle is but one of many struggles that are common to man it is within their power to control their actions just as all persons can.

Same answer as #2 above. Unless you acknowledge that for some, they will be homosexual during their entire mortal life, you’re not presenting the Church’s official stance regarding homosexuality correctly.

In point 3 I was saying that there is hope for people who struggle with homosexual tendencies to enjoy intimate physical relations in this life. I've encountered many individuals who struggle with homosexual tendencies but who have been able to control their feelings, find a spouse of the opposite sex who they love and are attracted to, and enjoy married life within the bounds God has set. This doesn't mean that this will always be the case just as it is not always the case for heterosexual people, but, I think it is folly to claim that there is no hope for homosexuals to enjoy intimate physical relations the way God has intended.

I don’t understand what you’re trying to demonstrate here. What exactly does this excerpt demonstrate that contradicts the counsel of the prophets and apostles...There are literally no heterosexual people who struggle with the same type of adversity unless they are bisexual. They may struggle with the same degree of adversity, but not the same type.

The dialogue I quoted answered the exact same position that I feel is problematic that I presented in my initial post. As a reminder, here is the problematic position:

"As opposed to heterosexual church members, homosexual church members have no hope of ever being able to have intimate physical relations while still maintaining the law of chastity. Therefore the struggle of an LDS homosexual is a unique or uncommon struggle."

The dialogue demonstrates that the struggle is not unique. And what is the struggle? To remain celibate your whole life. Any person, whether homosexual or heterosexual, who is unable to marry has the same struggle to remain celibate outside of the bonds of marriage. Further, homosexuals are not unique either in that they have little hope of getting married, because there are many heterosexuals who for various reasons, have little hope of getting married as well. In each case, if they wish to obey God they will need to remain celibate for the rest of their life with little hope of that changing in mortality.

It's been my observation that once someone comprehends that it is all about breaking the law of chastity, it’s then very easy to understand why homosexual sex is not allowed. It’s not necessarily easy for someone who is homosexual to do, but it is then easy for him/her to understand.

Exactly! Good point. This sentiment is part of what I'm trying to get across.

However, I am concerned that you appear to insist homosexuality is not a permanent state while mortal when the Church’s position is that in many cases it is, so much so that President Hinckley said men with same-sex attraction should not marry.

No, I make no such insistence. I think you've misunderstood some of my points that I have now hopefully clarified.

Kind Regards,

Finrock

[Finrock]

Good evening AintNoCityBoy. I hope you are well. :)

Homosexuals want nothing more than attention.

I give them none.

I don't agree. Personally, I think you are speaking from ignorance. Join the discussion if you wish, but please be kind.

"School thy feelings; there is power

In the cool, collected mind.

Passion shatters reason’s tower,

Makes the clearest vision blind"

Regards,

Finrock

[Finrock]

Good evening MarginOfError. I trust that you are doing well? :)

First, I think it is important you understand that although the discussion in the thread you linked to was the catalyst for this thread, I was not addressing this thread to any one particular person, but rather I was addressing a particular sentiment.

Instead of responding to particular points in your post I've decided to present my position in a more concise way. The reason why I am doing this is because many of your responses were missing the point. I'm operating under the assumption that I am at fault because I was unable to clearly express my position and this is what lead to the confusion.

So, here goes...

Here is sentiment S: "As opposed to heterosexual church members, homosexual church members have no hope of ever being able to have intimate physical relations while still maintaining the law of chastity. Therefore the struggle of an LDS homosexual is a unique or uncommon struggle."

I believe sentiment S to be problematic because:

1. Accepting sentiment S in my experience seems to lead people to believe that it is OK for homosexuals to break the law of chastity or they should be allowed to marry.

2. Sentiment S contradicts the scripture in 1 Cor. 10:13 which states that "[t]here hath no temptation taken [us] but such as is common to man..."

3. The idea expressed in sentiment S that there is no hope of homosexual individuals of lawfully experiencing intimate relations in the bonds of marriage is shortsighted and artificially hopeless.

4. Sentiment S contradicts what prophets and apostles have said about the struggle homosexuals experience.

Premise 1 is arguably anecdotal, but there seems to be some correlation between beliefs.

Premise 2 is true because 1 Cor. 10:13 tells us that no temptation we suffer is uncommon, including the temptation of homosexual individuals.

Premise 3 is true because reality has demonstrated that there are cases where people who suffer from homosexual tendencies have been able to resist acting on those tendencies and subsequently they have been able to find an opposite sex spouse whom they love and are attracted to and enjoy the blessings of marriage.

Premise 4 is true as demonstrated by the dialogue quoted between Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman. In answer to the question "aren’t we asking a little more of someone who has same-gender attraction" to remain celibate since they have no hope of getting married? The response was that their struggle to remain celibate despite being unable to marry is not unique.

Why is it important to reject sentiment S? Because in doing so one can accept that homosexual conduct falls under the umbrella of the law of chastity and it is not a special or uncommon temptation. And when we recognize and accept the fact that homosexual conduct is in the same class of conduct as any other sexual sin then how we address this issue becomes more clear and we are less likely to try and justify or somehow make normal conduct that is not justified and not normal. Furthermore, recognizing this should give same-gender attracted individuals hope that they do have a means to overcome their tendencies and find peace and happiness in living the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Regards,

Finrock

[GaySaint]

Finrock: First of all, I think you are trying to understand this issue, and I find that very wonderful. I also am glad you started this discussion.

Can I give you the gay perspective? The thing that I think makes homosexuality “different” from any other sexual “sin” or “addiction” or “weakness” is the fact that the hope that you define rests on a core characteristic (which sexual orientation is called in the Oaks/Wickman article) being changed after this life.

I’m going to use your example of the handicapped woman to illustrate my point.

She is asked to maintain hope that everything she wants in the next life will be hers if she remains faithful (IE, the husband, family, Godhood, etc). Gay people are asked to GIVE UP on the hope they have for what they want (a partner of the same sex, family, etc) with the promise that perhaps in the next life we will actually WANT a partner of the opposite sex.

The issue, for me, is that I don’t want to marry a woman. Never have. I’m expected to live a life not having what I want, so that I can hope to live a life in the next also not having what I want. So the blessing if I am faithful is a wife and eternal children in a family arrangement that I find as “abnormal” as you find homosexuality.

The great promise is that I will be given something I never wanted anyway. Can you see why that would make this issue even more difficult? Perhaps even special?

The handicapped woman WANTS what the blessing will be in the end. How am I supposed to even begin to want that? (This is a retorical question that you can try to answer if you wish, but is more asked to emphasize the point)

[Finrock]

Good afternoon GaySaint. It is a pleasure to meet you! :)

Can I give you the gay perspective?

Thank you for sharing your perspective.

The issue, for me, is that I don’t want to marry a woman. Never have. I’m expected to live a life not having what I want, so that I can hope to live a life in the next also not having what I want. So the blessing if I am faithful is a wife and eternal children in a family arrangement that I find as “abnormal” as you find homosexuality.

The great promise is that I will be given something I never wanted anyway. Can you see why that would make this issue even more difficult? Perhaps even special?

The handicapped woman WANTS what the blessing will be in the end. How am I supposed to even begin to want that? (This is a retorical question that you can try to answer if you wish, but is more asked to emphasize the point)

I as a male I don't understand being attracted to another male in the way that I am attracted to a woman. But, I do understand attraction and desire and, at a fundamental level, I don't believe that your feelings of attraction and desire are any different than mine. To that extent I understand what you mean.

Although you presented your question as a rhetorical question you did leave me the option of answering so I would like to take that opportunity. I suppose I would answer that question by saying that our goal should be to align our desires with God's. Our "...sanctification cometh because of [us] yielding [our] hearts unto God” (Helaman 3:35). The scriptures speak of us having a mighty change of heart and of becoming perfected in Christ. This change is described as "mighty" in the scriptures and indeed it entails, "...a spiritual rebirth and fundamental change of what we feel and desire, what we think and do, and what we are. Indeed, the essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ entails a fundamental and permanent change in our very nature made possible through our reliance upon 'the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah'" (Elder Bednar, Emphasis added). As we strive to obey God and do His will, then "[l]ine upon line and precept upon precept, gradually and almost imperceptibly, our motives, our thoughts, our words, and our deeds become aligned with the will of God" (Elder Bednar).

So, our goal in life should ultimately be about aligning our desires and our wills to God's desire and will. We will not be able to do that perfectly, but if it is our desire, above anything else, to align our wills with God's will, then through the miracle of the atonement and the sanctifying blood of Christ, we will eventually get there. It is how we become purified, sanctified, and qualified for exaltation. Our focus in life should be on doing God's will and not our own. It is a thing all of us must understand and desire above anything else.

Regards,

Finrock

Edited April 5, 2010 by Finrock

[GaySaint]

Finrock: Thank you for answering the question to the best of your ability. Good to meet you too!

Although I do think there are differences in our attractions (in that you are attracted to women, and I am to men – in the same way any LDS member who is homosexual would be), I do think that is where the difference ends. I just wanted to clarify that I am quite certain that I feel the same for my partner as you do for yours, and in that way, our attractions are the same. I’m certain you weren’t trying to suggest that your attraction is different from mine in that regard, but I wanted to clarify that for others who may misread what you said about that. If I’m wrong, and you did mean that, please expound on that point, if you will.

While I don’t disagree with the need to align out will with God’s, I think the fundamental difference is what we believe that will to be.

If you ask my mother, who disowned me, whether someone who is gay can become straight, she would tell you that if there was, I would have found it. I spent years and thousands of dollars trying to become straight. I obeyed every item of counsel and instruction from my priesthood leaders. I’m an RM, and spent from the age of 12 trying to make sense of and align my desires with what the church taught God wanted for me. I do think there are answers, and I’ve posted on this idea ad nausea, so I won’t repeat myself here other than to say that if you ask many of the gay LDS men and women who are now leading lives with a partner of the same sex, just about every one who had a real testimony of the church at one point in their life will tell you they also now have a testimony, earned through prayer the same way their testimony of Christ was, regarding what God wants from them and that that revelation is guiding their life as an out gay man or woman.

While I personally understand how that can happen, or why people feel that way, I also understand how someone with your perspective would see the revelation as contrary to the will of God. But with the thousands of testimonies about such revelations occurring, I don’t think they can easily be dismissed as deception.

My point, I suppose, is that it is all about perspective. If it is possible for homosexuality to not be a sin (as in still living the law of chastity because sex would occur within a homosexual marriage), as it is from my perspetive, then a lot of the perspective you have on the issue would change (of course, I see the reverse of this as well). For example, it WOULD be possible for a homosexual to align his will with Gods. Currently, the only way to do that for a homosexual is to deny, or ignore, his or her personal will altogether – because after 12 years of trying (personal experience), it just doesn’t change.

The change of heart I prayed for for so long ended up being my homosexuality seen as a blessing, instead of a weakness.

Edited April 5, 2010 by GaySaint

[LocalFarms]

We are all expected to live a life that is against our "wants"

[GaySaint]

Local: I disagree. Most of our wants can be satisfied within the gospel. There are outlets for just about everything (at least that doesn't first require a sinful action to create an addiction - like smoking, drinking, etc). Homosexuality seems to appear out of no where, with no actionable fault on the person who has it, and has no "church approved" outlet.

I believe if you are living a life against your wants then you are not really living as the church would want you to anyway. Why would someone be a member of the church unless they wanted to be? Whether that desire comes from fear of punishment, or hope of reward, doesn't really matter.

You may have to sacrifice what you want now for what you want later, but homosexuals are asked to sacrifice what they want now and later for something they don't want later.

Edit: Hypothetically, if the church switched positions and stated that in the next life everyone will be homosexual and that you will finally get that same-sex partner that God wants for you, how long would it take you to leave?

[LocalFarms]

I would counter that NONE of our unrighteous wants can be satisfied in the gospel. For the record I lived for years as an out and proud gay man. If the churched announced that I would be homosexual in the next life I would accept it if the spirit confirmed that this is true. I would also accept it if the church said we'll be fish living in jello if the spirit confirmed it but I don't see it happening

[GaySaint]

Wow Local, I’m sorry that I assumed some things about you (it is very easy to do on these forums, just like it is very easy for members of the church to do so about LGBT people). I think you are a great asset on these forums if that is the case, especially if you are willing to discuss your personal experiences. I think you could help a lot of people, both gay and LDS, understand that not everyone fits into the same little boxes we place them in.

[LocalFarms]

Wow Local, I’m sorry that I assumed some things about you (it is very easy to do on these forums, just like it is very easy for members of the church to do so about LGBT people). I think you are a great asset on these forums if that is the case, especially if you are willing to discuss your personal experiences. I think you could help a lot of people, both gay and LDS, understand that not everyone fits into the same little boxes we place them in.

That's why I'm here

[Finrock]

Finrock: Thank you for answering the question to the best of your ability. Good to meet you too!

You are welcome.

Although I do think there are differences in our attractions (in that you are attracted to women, and I am to men – in the same way any LDS member who is homosexual would be), I do think that is where the difference ends. I just wanted to clarify that I am quite certain that I feel the same for my partner as you do for yours, and in that way, our attractions are the same. I’m certain you weren’t trying to suggest that your attraction is different from mine in that regard, but I wanted to clarify that for others who may misread what you said about that. If I’m wrong, and you did mean that, please expound on that point, if you will.

I meant attraction and desire are the same whether you are heterosexual or homosexual. Only difference is what gender you are attracted to. I was saying that I may not understand what it means to be attracted to a man (other than in a platonic way), I do however understand attraction and desire which I believe is the same across the board for everyone.

While I don’t disagree with the need to align out will with God’s, I think the fundamental difference is what we believe that will to be.

Of course. If we believe God's will is X then we will align it with X. However, in the same vein, we must recognize that we do not have the capacity to modify truth to fit our circumstances. So regardless of what we may believe, truth is ultimately what matters.

If you ask my mother, who disowned me, whether someone who is gay can become straight, she would tell you that if there was, I would have found it. I spent years and thousands of dollars trying to become straight. I obeyed every item of counsel and instruction from my priesthood leaders. I’m an RM, and spent from the age of 12 trying to make sense of and align my desires with what the church taught God wanted for me.

I don't think the expectation is for us to be able to change all of our desires now. I believe what is important is that we desire what God wants above anything else. I don't pretend to think that all of my personal desires and wants have been rooted from my heart. I suppose there are things that I want now that as I mature in the gospel I will not want later. I may not even recognize the desires I have now as being things I should forfeit. I've already experienced this a number of times. As my knowledge and testimony grew my desires for some things lessened or disappeared and my desire for Godly things increased.

The point is not that we will not have desires that are contrary to God's will but that we desire above all else God's will, and in due time, God will root out those things that are not fit for exaltation. I imagine that when we have our exalted and immortal bodies, when we will understand as God understands, that our desires or what we felt was important during mortality will be radically changed.

I do think there are answers, and I’ve posted on this idea ad nausea, so I won’t repeat myself here other than to say that if you ask many of the gay LDS men and women who are now leading lives with a partner of the same sex, just about every one who had a real testimony of the church at one point in their life will tell you they also now have a testimony, earned through prayer the same way their testimony of Christ was, regarding what God wants from them and that that revelation is guiding their life as an out gay man or woman.

While I personally understand how that can happen, or why people feel that way, I also understand how someone with your perspective would see the revelation as contrary to the will of God. But with the thousands of testimonies about such revelations occurring, I don’t think they can easily be dismissed as deception.

I can only say what I am going to say in a way that appears blunt. Please understand that I am not being malicious. If a testimony entails beliefs that are contradictory or contrary to scripture and the words of the living prophets, then it is a false testimony. Any personal revelation we receive must be measured up against the standard works and the words of the living prophets. We are not entiled to receive revelation in contradiction to what the scriptures and prophets say.

I simply cannot accept any revelation that goes against what has been established by scripture and the prophets. I think it is folly to do so.

My point, I suppose, is that it is all about perspective.

I agree that in some things it is about perspective. In questions about the gospel, however, it is about knowing what is actually true and accepting that truth. Personal perspective in this sphere is largely irrelevant.

For example, it WOULD be possible for a homosexual to align his will with Gods. Currently, the only way to do that for a homosexual is to deny, or ignore, his or her personal will altogether – because after 12 years of trying (personal experience), it just doesn’t change.

Yes, that is the point, really. And this doesn't just apply to homosexuals, but to all people. We must deny and ignore any desire that is contrary to God's desire. Our desire and our will ought to be to aling our will and desire perfectly with God's will and desire. Our change of heart isn't a single event, but rather it is a life long process and we may not see the final results until after mortality, but the important thing is that we desire to have our wills aligned perfectly with God's will. This means our will will be swallowed up in God's will and they will be one and the same. To say it another way, insofar as our personal desires align with God's desires we should keep them, but insofar as they do not, we should discard them (sometimes this means ignoring them, not acting on them, or denying them even though the desire still exist within us).

The truth is that God's will is not for us to practice homosexuality. His will does not sanction homosexual marriage. We either accept this truth or we do not. But, this isn't just an issue with homosexuality because all of us have wants and desires, deeply rooted at times, that are not inline with God's desire for us. All of us must be willing to forsake our wants and desires in favor of God's wants and desires. Why? Because He knows what is best for us. We may not always see why we should do something, but that is part of our trust relationship with Him. We just have to trust that what He says is the best thing.

The change of heart I prayed for for so long ended up being my homosexuality seen as a blessing, instead of a weakness.

That is a good perspective to take. Our weaknesses are intended to ultimately be blessings to us to grow and learn from. It is all in how we appoach them.

Regards,

Finrock

[Finrock]

Edit: Hypothetically, if the church switched positions and stated that in the next life everyone will be homosexual and that you will finally get that same-sex partner that God wants for you, how long would it take you to leave?

This was directed at LocalFarms, but I would like to answer this as well. If the hypothetical scenario became reality, I would accept it. My trust in the prophets of this church is complete and absolute. For better or for worse, I will go to my grave accepting the scripturally declared words of our prophets and apostles as the words of God.

Regards,

Finrock

[GaySaint]

I imagine that when we have our exalted and immortal bodies, when we will understand as God understands, that our desires or what we felt was important during mortality will be radically changed.

We certainly agree here. Can't wait for that day, whatever the outcome :) One of the reasons I support gay marriage is because some people claim that once gay marriage is legal that the world would be so evil that it will somehow trigger the second coming. I'm all for that. I've got some questions I'd like to ask Christ face to face (tounge in cheek)

I can only say what I am going to say in a way that appears blunt.

I don't offend easily. Feel free to be blunt. You have set everything you have said to me with a tone of respect, and I hope I have done the same. I feel very secure where I am in life, even if I can't explain why all the time (as I'm sure you feel with the gospel), so be blunt.

We are not entiled to receive revelation in contradiction to what the scriptures and prophets say..

While I won't argue this point because it won't help the thread, and I'm not here to promote a personal agenda, I do think this point can be argued... scripturally. Lehi leaving Jeruselem is just one example of someone being commanded by God to do something different than the prophet was commanded. The "highest ranking" prophet at this time was Jeremiah, and I don't think he would have been too happy with Lehi disobeying the orders he recieved from God to have the prophets preach repentance to the city.

The truth is that God's will is not for us to practice homosexuality. His will does not sanction homosexual marriage.

Again, this is truth from your perspective confirmed by the spirit. I also feel truth in regards to this confirmed by the spirit. While that appears to be contradictory to you, it hasn't been in my experience. But again, that adds nothing to the discussion, other than to say that it is not right for you to question what God has told me just like it isn't right for me to question what God has told you. If my testimony is false, then so must my testimony be of Christ, because it was the same spirit. You cannot tell me one was correct and on was not when they have been so closely knit together by the spirit. I know that doesn't make sense to you, but that's ok. It isn't for you.

While the prophets have come out against homosexuality, they do so with the justification that it breaks the law of chastity BECAUSE it falls under the category of sex outside of marriage. If gay marriage were to be made legal, I do think this justification disappears (which is why I think the church is against gay marriage). Of course, we then get into the legitimacy of civil marriage vs. eternal marriage… and that is a dead horse I’m not going to start beating again (although there is another topic with my feelings on this).

Are these justifications the result of revelation, or of the human prejudice of man (I AM NOT criticizing church leaders here, simply stating that there hasn't been a "Thus saith the Lord" in this regard)?

[GaySaint]

Finrock: You would abandon your family?

I admit that has been my hangup. I don't think there would be as many people willing to do this if it were to really happen. The church has been amazing at teaching the importance of family, and I think it would be very hard to walk away from that. Thankfully, I don't think God will ask that of you.

Unfortunately, according to many many LDS members, he has asked that of me.

[Finrock]

Finrock: You would abandon your family?

I admit that has been my hangup. I don't think there would be as many people willing to do this if it were to really happen. The church has been amazing at teaching the importance of family, and I think it would be very hard to walk away from that. Thankfully, I don't think God will ask that of you.

Unfortunately, according to many many LDS members, he has asked that of me.

Regarding the hypothetical scenario, I don't know how the two concepts are related, but, if that was required and it was indeed God's will, then I would abandon my family. I don't say that this will be easy; Just as I strive but haven't yet succeeded in abandoning other desires that are contrary to God's will, but I would accept it and do what I needed to do to align myself with that teaching.

Regards,

Finrock

[Traveler]

Finrock: You would abandon your family?

I admit that has been my hangup. I don't think there would be as many people willing to do this if it were to really happen. The church has been amazing at teaching the importance of family, and I think it would be very hard to walk away from that. Thankfully, I don't think God will ask that of you.

Unfortunately, according to many many LDS members, he has asked that of me.

A question - do you believe the natural man is an enemy to G-d?

The Traveler

[GaySaint]

Sorry, they are related because in order for me to "align my will to God's" as you have defined it, I would have to abandon my family.

While I have to wonder if you really could do so if it were asked of you, I must admire your comittment. Perhaps that is why I am no longer a member of the church and you are...

But honestly I wouldn't want it any other way. I love my partner and wouldn't deny that even in the face of God himself. Whether that hurts or harms me remains to be seen, I suppose.

And now I got too personal :) Back to the generic conversation... haha.

Edited April 5, 2010 by GaySaint

[GaySaint]

Traveler: So Second Nephi says, but defining Natural Man seems to be the difficult thing.

Some people call homosexuality unnatural. By such definition, homosexuality would be more virtuous than heterosexuality (which would be defined by these people as natural).

So could you define "natural man" for me?

Oops: Mosiah... lol. I was thinking 2 Ne 2:27. I MEANT Mosiah 3:19, ha!

Edited April 5, 2010 by GaySaint

[GADBabaganoosh]

"My point, I suppose, is that it is all about perspective. If it is possible for homosexuality to not be a sin (as in still living the law of chastity because sex would occur within a homosexual marriage), as it is from my perspetive, then a lot of the perspective you have on the issue would change (of course, I see the reverse of this as well). For example, it WOULD be possible for a homosexual to align his will with Gods. Currently, the only way to do that for a homosexual is to deny, or ignore, his or her personal will altogether – because after 12 years of trying (personal experience), it just doesn’t change."

Whats the point of sex? To make offspring. Whats the point of marriage? To bring together a man and a woman, in love (this is ideal) so they can bring heavenly fathers children into a loving home and teach them the gospel, and help them prepare for eternity in heavenly fathers plan. We've been given families and families are eternal.

Homosexual sex doesn't fit in that category, its a gratification of lust. (even if you do love your partner) because the purpose of sex is to create children, not simply to be enjoyed. Thats a wordly viewpoint of sex thats been floating around for awhile. Mans law cannot overcome God's law. Theres the letter of the law and the spirit. From the things i've read, it seems you are trying to justify something that is wrong, and not in harmony with God's plan, to making it right. People tend to do this when they can't overcome a problem (i've been guilty of it too.) I don't write this message in hate, just in observance.

[GaySaint]

GAD: While I agree that there is a purpose in sex to procreate and have children, homosexuality is about much much more than sex, including spiritual, physical, and emotional connections.

I don't have access to the church handbook of instruction anymore, but there used to be a line in there about intimacy in marriage. It said something along the lines of "intimacy in marriage is not only to be used to create children, but to strengthen the relationship between the spouses."

Boyd K Packer said: “Romantic love is not only a part of life, but literally a dominating influence of it. It is deeply and significantly religious. There is no abundant life without it. Indeed, the highest degree of the celestial kingdom is unattainable in the absence of it” (BYU Fireside, Nov. 3, 1963).

I believe one of the differences between romantic love and the other types of love is the bond that forms between two people when they have sex.

So sex is about more than children, and homosexuality is about more than sex. I hope that helps.

[LocalFarms]

Traveler: So Second Nephi says, but defining Natural Man seems to be the difficult thing.

Some people call homosexuality unnatural. By such definition, homosexuality would be more virtuous than heterosexuality (which would be defined by these people as natural).

So could you define "natural man" for me?

Oops: Mosiah... lol. I was thinking 2 Ne 2:27. I MEANT Mosiah 3:19, ha!

For me the deffinition of the natural man is someone who is guided by their "self" (inwardness) versus their God (outwardness).

Edited April 5, 2010 by LocalFarms
edited for spelling error

[Elgama]

But honestly I wouldn't want it any other way. I love my partner and wouldn't deny that even in the face of God himself. Whether that hurts or harms me remains to be seen, I suppose.

.

I hope you don't mind me wading in - I really get this part of your post, for me the Celestial Kingdom would not be right without my husband, sure I could maybe have another one but it wouldn't be the same. And I would make the same statement

[GaySaint]

Thank you Elgama, and please feel free to wade in :)

Local: I think I would agree with you, and you made that definition seem simple. However, I don't think that definition necessarily excludes gay people.